Acting Prime Minister Ehud Olmert thanked the Conference for "its unyielding, powerful and long-standing support of the State of Israel and the Government of Israel ... and for your deep bond and unrelenting daily efforts to strengthen the State of Israel and guarantee its safety, security, development and prosperity." He added: "And I know that when I say this, I speak for my friend and leader, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. There was nothing which he loved more than to meet people. There was no group which made him feel more at home than when he met with all of you."

Acting PM Olmert’s remarks to the Conference focused on two major policy issues: the electoral victory of Hamas and the Iranian threat to Israel. On Hamas, he underscored Israel’s position that it will neither negotiate nor compromise as long as Hamas is dedicated to the destruction of the State of Israel. Israel appreciates the international community’s insistence, led by the United States, that Hamas recognize Israel’s right to live in peace and security, renounce violence, and acknowledge agreements between the Palestinian Authority and Israel.

Iran, he said, has a leader obsessed with anti- Semitism who is pursuing nuclear weapons. The threat is not to Israel alone and it is the international community’s responsibility to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.

For the full text of his remarks, please click here.

Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, who had met with the Conference in New York just weeks prior to the Leadership Mission, addressed the delegation about relations with the Palestinians. She emphasized Israel’s uncompromising stance on the election of Hamas: no negotiations will be conducted unless Hamas recognizes Israel, renounces violence, and accepts prior Palestinian Authority agreements with Israel. Elections are not “a whitewash for terror,” and Israel does not accept the argument that it should deal with any elected Palestinian government without regard to its nature. Some countries are trying to undermine the international consensus that Hamas must fulfill the three conditions, but Israel will maintain its position. President Abbas had told the international community that he could obtain legitimacy for stronger action through elections, but the result was the opposite. When faced with a weak leader like Abbas on one hand and radical Islamist terrorists like Hamas on the other, Israel must maintain a strong and clear position against terror and for a peaceful settlement, based on a two-state solution.

Minister Livni added that the two- state solution is in Israel’s interest in order to remain a Jewish and democratic state. Disengagement from Gaza opened a window of opportunity and demonstrated that Israel is willing to make sacrifices for true peace. The election of Hamas has shut that window, though, for now. Nevertheless, the two- state solution remains the only possibility for Israel to remain the Jewish homeland and democratic, and the State of Israel must be willing to give up some of its rights to the Land of Israel. (Photo: FM Livni with B'nai B'rith International President Joel Kaplan.)

Defense Minister Mofaz thanked the Conference for the visit, saying, “it is very important that we know we have your support.” He called Iran the main threat in the long run, a regime that conducts terror, finances terror and harbors terrorists. Its radical regime and leader called for the destruction of Israel, denied the Holocaust, and seek a nuclear capability. The West cannot allow that dangerous combination. The IAEA decision to send the issue to the Security Council was the right thing to do. Sanctions could be effective and should be implemented as soon as possible, though they will not suffice on their own. Broad and deep inspections of all nuclear sites in Iran are also needed. For now, the diplomatic channel is the right one to stop or delay the Iranian threat. The Iranian people do not support the radical regime, and one day will rid themselves of it. Whether they do so before or after gaining a nuclear capability is an important question.

The victory of Hamas, he said, calls into question the future of the Palestinian Authority itself. The fundamental conditions that Hamas must fulfill are well known, and Israel’s position is backed by the international community. Addressing other regional issues, Minister Mofaz said Syria continues to support terror, including Hezbollah’s activities against Israel and jihadi infiltration into Iraq to attack US and coalition forces. Al-Qaeda has been expanding in the region. They have attacked Israel from Lebanon and have attacked both Egypt and Jordan. Relations with Egypt and Jordan are improving. Egyptian border guards at the Rafah crossing are becoming more effective every month, and a strategic dialogue with Egypt will start on counter-terrorism intelligence cooperation.

Addressing the Conference for the first time as the leader of the Labor Party, Hon. Amir Peretz stated that his “red line is the green flag.” Hamas must be isolated and no negotiations were possible unless it disarmed and recognized Israel’s right to exist. Israel must encourage moderates among the Palestinians, but a Labor-led government would not simply wait for them. Labor had the finest military and security experts and would take unilateral actions, including finishing the security fence and dismantling all illegal settlements in the West Bank. National security cannot be separated from domestic justice and equality. Too many Israelis live in poverty, including a third of all children and 22% of the elderly. The minimum wage must be raised, pensions must be ensured, and education must be improved. These programs can be enacted without new taxes. They are not radical policies, but similar to those of Bill Clinton and Tony Blair.

Also speaking for the Labor Party were Hon. Yitzhak Herzog, Mr. Avishai Braverman, Adm. Ami Ayalon, and Hon. Colette Avital. Mr. Herzog said that almost the entire leadership of Labor was present in order to show its appreciation for the Conference visit. Labor is the only party presenting a complete socio-economic agenda and was attracting increasing support. Mr. Braverman spoke about the need to fight terror without neglecting social justice. The Labor Party is pro-competition, for fiscal discipline, and will attract foreign investors to Israel, but it does not subscribe to the trickle-down theory of economics. Education will be a top priority. Adm. Ayalon said the Hamas victory should have been obvious to close observers of the situation over the past years. His long experience in Israel’s defense and security forces have taught him that Israel can shape its future and will have security when the Palestinians have hope. If the Palestinians have nothing to lose, they cannot be deterred. Victory for Israel should be defined as having a thriving Jewish democracy, not by the number of Palestinian cities conquered. Ms. Avital said that there was a broad consensus among the major Israeli parties on relations with the Palestinians: a two-state solution and no negotiations with Hamas. The major differences were on socio-economic issues. Labor was for massive increases in funding for education, in both the cities and the periphery, from kindergarten through university. (Photo, L-R: Ami Ayalon, Avishai Braverman, Yitzhak Herzog, Amir Peretz, and Conference of Presidents Chairman Harold Tanner.)

Likud leader Hon. Benjamin Netanyahu told the delegation that the rise of Hamas was an historic event. Fatah also was murderous and wanted to destroy Israel, but Hamas is part of the global jihadist movement, not a local gang. Any territory given to Hamas will be used against Israel, and they can also present a threat to Jordan. Contrary to what some have argued, power will not make them responsible. Power made neither the Taliban nor Ayatollah Khomeini responsible. Hamas will behave just as the Iranians do, and build an army and missiles to use against us. Hamas can be stopped with a policy of strength. Israel should build three “iron walls” around Hamas. First, the security boundaries, including the Jordan valley and the Judean desert, must be under Israeli control to prevent arms-smuggling and to prevent Hamas from expanding into Jordan. Second, a political “iron wall” must be maintained to prevent any international legitimization of Hamas. To do so, there must be complete support for this position in the US. Third, an economic “iron wall” must prevent any funds getting to Hamas in order to create internal pressure on them. The Palestinians should choose the Turkish model, not the Iranian model, but at the moment they have chosen the Iranian path.

Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee Chairman Yuval Steinitz also addressed the delegation. He said that it is wishful thinking to hope that Hamas will moderate. Hamas is part of the worldwide Muslim Brotherhood, which has been trying to gain power in Egypt, Syria, and Saudi Arabia for decades. Those states blocked them, but Israel has allowed Hamas to take over the Palestinian Authority. Only one question matters. Are we ready to see a Hamas state in the immediate proximity of Jerusalem, Tel Aviv and the country’s center? If not, Israel should prevent the consolidation of a Hamas government and can do so without massive force, just as Ariel Sharon did with Yasser Arafat. The US goal of democratization of the Arab world is a good one, but democratic institutions and an open society are prerequisites for elections. Israel should have prevented the elections that brought Hamas to power. Though a supporter of the disengagement from Gaza, he said that there should not be another disengagement from the West Bank. Qassam rockets falling on Sderot is bad enough, but Qassams fired at Tel Aviv and Ben Gurion airport represent a strategic threat. In addition, Iranian experts and rockets would soon be on the outskirts of Jerusalem. The Likud strategy will be to prevent the consolidation of a Hamas government and army in the West Bank.

On Iran, Mr. Steinitz said Iran could have a nuclear weapon in two years, if nothing is done. He was skeptical that preventing an Iranian nuclear capability could be accomplished without force. In five years, when Iran finishes developing the Shihab-5, their missiles will be able to reach the East Coast of the US. Iran is so determined to become a nuclear superpower that UN sanctions will not deter them. The only chance to deal with Iran successfully is if the entire international community, led by the US, will wave a big enough stick, making clear that force will be used if necessary. (Photo: Former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu with Conference past Chairman Leon Levy.)

Amb. Richard Jones described the extensive US-Israel cooperation that the US embassy facilitates with a dozen US government agencies, including the Commerce Department, the Defense Intelligence Agency, USAID, FBI, Department of Agriculture and others, in addition to its work on the Arab-Israeli conflict. The relationship has significant content with US and Israeli security experts meeting for counter-terrorism cooperation at practical and policy levels and the US-Israel strategic dialogue, which resumed in October after the resolution of export control issues. The bilateral economic relationship is strong with over 20 years of free trade.

Ambassador Jones presented his views on Israeli politics, saying that the political map had been redrawn by multiple events: rebellions in Likud and in Labor, the creation of Kadima, and PM Sharon’s stroke. The manner in which these events were handled, he said, demonstrated that Israel’s democracy is resilient and reflects the maturity of the Israeli people and their leaders. The US believes that disengagement was the right thing to do, despite the difficulties, and led to improvements in Israel’s international position, including diplomatic openings with Muslim states, the adoption of a UN Holocaust resolution, and ending the exclusion of the Magen David Adom.

Regarding the Palestinians, he said that President Bush and the Quartet insisted that Hamas meet three conditions: recognition of Israel, renunciation of violence, and acceptance of the Palestinian Authority’s agreements with Israel. The Roadmap principles remain valid and both sides must adhere to their obligations. The US is working to end incitement by supporting radio and TV programs to emphasize non-violence and tolerance and campaigning for the introduction of non-violence concepts in UNRWA schoolbooks. (Photo: Amb. Jones with Hadassah President June Walker.)

Maj.-Gen. (ret.) Giora Eiland, Head of the National Security Council and National Security Advisor to the Prime Minister, told the delegation that the current situation with the Palestinians can be explained by a mistake that Israel has consistently repeated over the past 36 years: insisting on the responsibility to resolve the Palestinian issue. In 1979 at Camp David, Israel demanded to keep Gaza. A few years later Israel rejected the idea of a West Bank/Jordan confederation, and the same mistake was repeated on other occasions. Now Israel wants to separate, but the world responds that it cannot, that the Palestinians are Israel’s responsibility. The international community is asking Israel to return to Green Line, but without returning to situation of 1967 when the neighboring Arab states took care of populations in Gaza and the West Bank. The problem is that the emergence of an Arab state, Palestine, is supposed to be taken care of by Israel, including access to work in Israel and integration with Israel’s infrastructure.

Gen. Eiland suggested re-considering the current paradigm of a two-state solution between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea with a border roughly on the Green Line. History and demography argue against the current paradigm. The two-state proposal is 70 years old and has been rejected by the Arabs five times. Today, there are 11 million people between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, but in 2050 there will be 30 million. There is much empty land east of the Jordan River and in Sinai, and potential border changes would not even approach the changes in European borders after both World War I and II.

To deal with Hamas, he said, there are three options. First, not to accept the results of the elections, to re-occupy the West Bank, dismantle the Palestinian Authority, and revert to the pre-Oslo situation, except for Gaza which will be completely separated from the West Bank. Second, to crush Hamas economically by cutting off all fuel, electricity and water from Israel and ending the free movement of goods and people. Historically, this approach is high-risk and often counter-productive. Third, to end all political contact, freeze all future obligations, enact minor economic sanctions, and show the Palestinians that there is no future with Hamas. In the absence of change, Israel will have more international legitimacy to take unilateral actions.

Please click here for additional speakers on Israel's National Security, including former head of the Israel Security Agency Avi Dichter and Adm. David Ben- Bashat, Commander of the Israeli Navy, who hosted the delegation at the Haifa Naval Base. (Photo: Maj.-Gen. (ret.) Giora Eiland, speaking, with ARZA President R. Stanley Davids.)

Several Foreign Ministry professionals briefed the delegation on their respective portfolios. Amb. Nimrod Barkan, Director of Political Research, provided an overview of the Islamic world’s reaction to the West. He described three subgroups: the religious but apolitical population, the Islamist parties, and the Islamist revolutionaries. The first group is comprised of religious people who do not have a political agenda, but push back against Western pressure on women’s rights and similar issues. The second group includes Islamist parties, like Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Muslim Brotherhood, that he described as “evolutionary revolutionaries.” They have a sense of responsibility to their constituencies, and try to avoid policies that will hurt their people. He cited Hezbollah’s reticence to attack Israel, because they do not want to cause the Shiites in Southern Lebanon to go through another war. Hamas is acting similarly. The third group of “revolutionary revolutionaries,” like al-Qaeda and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, are trying to launch a global revolution and do not worry about any negative consequences of their attacks. The strategic question is whether Hamas and Hezbollah can be destroyed or only contained. He suggested that a containment strategy be pursued.

Amb. Amos Nadai, Deputy Director General for Asia and the Pacific, said 20% of Israel’s foreign trade is with Asia, despite normalization with China and India having occurred only 14 years ago. The main opportunities are in technology transfer, both military and civilian. Since China and India remain largely agricultural societies, agricultural technology plays a large role. Israel and the US sometimes collaborate in development work in Asia. There are eight Asian countries with which Israel does not have diplomatic relations, including Indonesia, the most populous Muslim country. Creating good will with them is important to develop relationships, and because their statements on the Middle East can be influential. He cited positive statements from Pakistan’s President Musharaff on disengagement as one example. Though full relations will likely not happen before a comprehensive Middle East peace, there are exchange programs for doctors and other professionals, and their influence back home is important.

Please click here for additional Foreign Ministry professionals, including Amb. Dorit Shavit on Central and South America, Amb. Ana Azari on Central Europe and Eurasia, Mr. Meron Reuven on the Center for International Cooperation (MASHAV), Mr. Alon Bar on Arms Control and Strategic Affairs, and Mr. Roni Adam on the United Nations. (Photo, L-R: Amos Nadai, Dorit Shavit, RZA Chairman Martin Oliner, NCSJ Chairman Robert Meth, and Ana Azari.)

L-R: Conference past Chairman Ken Bialkin, Amb. Uri Lubrani, ZOA President Mort Klein, Prof. Bernard Lewis, Conference Chairman Harold Tanner, Conference Executive Vice-Chairman Malcolm Hoenlein, Amb. Dore Gold.

Renowned scholar of the Arab world, Prof. Bernard Lewis, said radical Islam is a danger comparable to the Nazi regime and to the Soviet regime, and in a sense more dangerous, because the West has yet to appreciate the extent of the challenge. In the Arab world, there is a sense of failure, of being overtaken by the rest of the world, and radical Islam is a reaction to that. The Islamists believe that we are in the era of the final confrontation between the Islamic world and the Christian world, the two religions that claim both universality and exclusivity. Osama Bin Laden and other Islamists saw the defeat of the Soviet Union in Afghanistan not as a victory for the West, but for Islam, and that it led to the collapse of the Soviet Union. They said that the more dangerous of the two world powers had been defeated, and that America would be easier. The invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq made them stop and consider, but the open debate in the West on Iraq and the split in public opinion are interpreted by them as signs of weakness, fear and division, reassuring them that their original assumptions are sound. Islamists are doing well in Europe, where in every country there is a movement to appease them. It is obvious to anyone with a sense of history where this will lead, and this new aggressiveness is already in evidence. Lost in the commotion surrounding the caricatures of Mohammed was a new and important event. The fatwas that called for punishment of the publishers for the first time claimed to extend Islamic law to non-Muslims in non-Muslim countries. In the case of Salman Rushdie, publishers were included in the fatwa but not threatened, because it was understood that non-Muslims who were not under Muslim sovereignty were beyond the reach of Islamic law.

The dangers of radical Islam are also apparent in the Iranian president’s apocalyptic language about the return of the Hidden Imam for the “final confrontation.” Ahmadinejad’s language indicates that he will approach the conflict with the West over the Iranian nuclear program in an ideological manner, not a practical one, and he will be difficult to deter. Saudi money and Wahabbi doctrine have been a pernicious influence around the world. Without Saudi oil money, Wahabbism would have been a lunatic fringe of the Islamic world. Outside the Muslim states, Wahabbism dominates, because they fund the mosques, schools, and summer camps in Europe and the US. As a result, Turks in Turkey learn moderate Islam in school, and Turks in Germany learn Wahabbism.

Please click here for additional expert analyses on regional issues, including Amb. Uri Lubrani, advisor to the Ministry of Defense, on Iran, Amb. Dore Gold, president of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, on Hamas and al-Qaeda, Prof. Eyal Zisser of Tel Aviv University’s Moshe Dayan Center on Lebanon and Syria, Dr. Liora Lukitz of Harvard’s Center for Middle East Studies on Iraq, and Dr. Eran Lerman, Director of the American Jewish Committee’s Israel office, on Hamas.

Prof. Asher Arian, Senior Fellow at the Israel Democracy Institute, spoke about the history of centrist parties in Israeli politics. Parties of center, he said, have always been popular, successful, and short-lived. A major political realignment occurred, with the exception of the ultra- Orthodox and Arab parties, leading to a coalition of disparate forces in Kadima. The most volatile group was the Russian immigrants, who had been attracted initially to Kadima but whose support has been eroding. Unlike other centrist parties, Kadima was poised to win the election outright. Previously, Left or Right parties won with the center party joining the coalition and exerting substantial influence.

Mr. Raviv Drucker, Senior Analyst on Israel’s Channel 10 TV, told the delegation that the apparent political apathy among voters had two explanations. First, there is little hope for a political solution with the Palestinians. Seventy-five percent of Israelis think there is no Palestinian partner. Second, the ideological gaps that emerged after June 1967 have become very narrow. Most Israelis agree on where the likely final borders will be. Kadima has said that they will define the borders, though they have not said where. Still, most people think they know.

Mr. Rafi Smith, a political consultant and owner of Smith Research, said Israelis are generally one step ahead of their leaders. According to opinion polls, the popular shift away from the Left and Right and toward identification as "centrist" began over five years ago. Likud voters were surprised by the right-ward tilt of the Likud's list in the previous election three years ago, and that is when the party started losing supporters. Ariel Sharon had no choice but to leave the Likud, because polls of Likud officials and Likud voters showed that the voters were more moderate than the party. (Photo, L-R: Rafi Smith, Raviv Drucker, Prof. Asher Arian.)

President of Israel’s Supreme Court, Justice Aharon Barak, and Justice Elyakim Rubinstein spoke about the role of the Court in Israel and the two major issues that underlie many of the cases that come before the Court: finding the right balance of security and human rights, and of the Jewish and democratic character of the State.

Justice Barak told the delegation that the Court should be “a bridge between law and life” that protects Israel’s democracy and its values as a Jewish state. Because Israel is a democracy and a Jewish state, it cannot fight terror without regard for human rights. The Court banned any kind of torture, and ruled that the security fence must be in line with international law and take into account Palestinian needs. He said, “a democracy fighting terror has to fight with one hand tied behind its back. But the free hand is much stronger as a result.” Those decisions are respected by the government when the Court rules against it. He recalled that Menachem Begin once famously declared, after his government lost a case, “There are judges in Jerusalem.”

Justice Rubinstein spoke about some of the differences between the US and Israeli Supreme Courts. In addition to being the highest appellate court, the Israeli Supreme Court can sit as the High Court of Justice, which hears petitions of first instance for judicial review of government acts. As a result, the Israeli Court’s case load is extremely high. The nine justices of the US Supreme Court hear about 80 cases each year, while the 14 Israeli justices are presented with thousands of cases. (Photo: Justice Elyakim Rubinstein addresses the delegation, after being introduced by past Chairman Mel Salberg. Chief Justice Aharon Barak is seated at right.)

In a session devoted to the Gaza evacuees, the delegation heard from Mr. Dror Vanunu, International Coordinator of the Gush Katif Committee, Ms. Laurence Beziz, Community Manager, Gadid Community, Ms. Miriam Shapira, Driector of the MAHUT Center, and Mr. Yossi Fuchs of the Legal Forum for the Land of Israel. (Photo, L-R: Laurence Beziz, Dror Vanunu, Yossi Fuchs.)

Mr. Vanunu said that the government had put great efforts into preparing the disengagement itself, but little into resettlement. Families have had to move from hotel to hotel, and 1500 people are still in hotels six months later. Farmers are having difficulty, because only 8% of them have received land from the government. Ms. Beziz echoed the complaints of the farmers, who have missed an entire agricultural season and lost clients as a result. Ms. Shapira described three aspects of the MAHUT center's counseling: coping with trauma of the evacuation, aiding evacuees to adjust to the environment of their new (and often temporary) residences, and lastly, mourning the communities and land left behind. Mr. Fuchs, who represented the evacuees in negotiations over the compensation law, told the delegation that the law must be changed, because it does not fully compensate the evacuees. For example, the compensation for pain and suffering was only 11% of what Sinai evacuees received, even though the Gaza communities were more established.

Mr. Ilan Cohen, Director-General of the Prime Minister’s office, made a presentation about the government’s programs to re-settle the Gaza evacuees. He said the government has made every effort to reduce the pain of the evacuation and rebuild the communities as fast as possible. Disengagement is one of the most complex processes that Israel ever had to go through, and mistakes were made. It was complex operationally and emotionally, with religious people leaving their homes and land that they believed was part of historic Israel. An important segment of Israeli society opposed the disengagement, considering it counter to Zionism, and it is important to ensure that Israeli society is not torn apart.

(Photo, L-R: Ilan Cohen, Harold Tanner, RZA President R. Yosef Blau, and World Sephardi Federation Vice-President Liliane Shalom.)

Mr. Cohen provided an update on compensation, employment programs, and re-establishment of communities. He said 1.2 billion shekels had been paid in compensation so far out of a 4.5 billion shekel budget. Some evacuees will not deal with the government, because they thought that the disengagement was treasonous. Among the evacuees, 60% were public sector employees and it is difficult for find jobs for people who are over 45 years old and were working in public sector. The government is investing in re-training, but it does not happen overnight. Three communities have been set up, one near Ashkelon, and two, Halutza and East Lakhish, in the Negev. Gaza yeshivot were re- opened there. Many of the difficulties are due to the refusal of families to talk to government, but the anger has lessened and progress is being made on reconciliation.

Mr. Steven Erlanger, Jerusalem Bureau Chief for the New York Times, compared the election of Hamas to the Iranian Revolution in terms of its importance to the Middle East. An offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood had just won an extraordinary victory and come to power through an open democratic election. Part of the blame lay with Fatah for its corruption and for fielding so many candidates. Fatah’s corruption, he said, had been aided and abetted by foreign donors who did not insist on true governance, but rather thought they were buying a peace process. Now everyone is trying to bolster President Abbas, even though he had been derided by Americans and Israelis as weak. Ironically, the US is trying to undo the strong Prime Ministership that it created a few years ago to sideline Arafat. This free and fair election that brought Hamas to power has created a conflict for the Bush Administration between its policy of democratization and its strategic interests. President Abbas is setting the stage for a confrontation with Hamas, but the question is whether he will be able to prevail.

Mr. Aluf Benn, Prime Minister’s Bureau correspondent for Ha’aretz, said the American doctrine of democratization is the most important force for change in the region. At the beginning of its conceptualization, Israelis did not think the Bush Administration was serious. Natan Sharansky came back from his meeting with President Bush and told several journalists that President Bush had read his book, The Case for Democracy, but nobody printed that news. No one really believed it. But, American involvement in Iraq and pressure for democratic reforms in Egypt and the Palestinian Authority has shown that democratization is a real doctrine. Now Hamas has been elected and everyone has to deal with it. Mahmoud Abbas now appears to be a transitional leader between Yasser Arafat and a Hamas regime. Domestically, Israel will have to reassess its policy. With Hamas in power it is unlikely that there will be a second disengagement to the Security Fence, though there may be some kind of smaller disengagement due to international pressure. The Hamas victory raises several important questions. Will Hamas maintain the cease-fire to try to gain international legitimacy or will it continue with the suicide bombings? Will the rest of the Arab world tighten its domestic policies to prevent the strengthening of Islamist groups in their countries? Will the Bush Administration reassess its policy of democratization and conclude that elections should not be held in Egypt?

Ms. Smadar Perry, Arab World Affairs correspondent for Yedioth Ahronoth, told the delegation that, despite the election outcome, the struggle between Hamas and Fatah had not yet been decided. Hamas was growing stronger and would not likely change its ideology. Arab governments were not happy with the Hamas victory. Hamas had been kicked out of Jordan in 1999, but Jordan now has to cooperate with them as neighbors. They need to work with Hamas, while not empowering Hamas inside Jordan. She also noted that the Palestinian street has some fears about the imposition of sharia law in Gaza. (Photo, L-R: Steven Erlanger, Aluf Benn, Smadar Perry.)

At a separate meeting, Mr. Ehud Yaari, leading analyst and commentator on Israel’s Channel 2, told the delegation that the victory of Hamas is a political catastrophe. Hamas is a more serious and more formidable adversary than Fatah, which will mobilize Palestinian society and shape it for long-term combat. Unilateral disengagement from the West Bank will not happen, because it would bring Iranian Revolutionary Guards to within 5 miles of Jerusalem. Hamas is offering a long-term ceasefire in exchange for a Palestinian state, which is basically the same deal as the 1949 Armistice agreements. They are hoping that the majority of the Israelis will say that a massive withdrawal from the West Bank is worth 15 years of armistice. Israel should not accept the formula that Hamas is offering. The Hamas victory is quite fragile and they will have enormous difficulties in exercising power. Israel should conduct a policy of siege, both diplomatic and economic.

To discuss the future of the State of Israel, the Conference invited three senior statesmen to draw on their experience and discuss their visions for Israel. Former President Yitzhak Navon told the delegation that Israel will never be able to compete with her adversaries in natural resources or population, so it must prevail though intellect, technology, and morality. Israel must be a modern society that is strong and just. The IDF must always be superior, and Israel must be a light unto the nations, not only because it was commanded to, but to ensure its survival. Moral actions will strengthen Israel domestically, bring international support, and encourage aliyah.

Hon. Moshe Arens, former government minister and ambassador, echoed President Navon’s message that Israel must maintain its qualitative military edge. The current weapons systems that give Israel that edge are primarily Israeli-made, and that should remain the case. All Israelis want peace, but some want to force events, which can lead to mistakes. Israel was on the verge several times of giving back the Golan to Syria, even though Syria has attacked several times from there. Ehud Barak was in a hurry for peace with the Palestinians and even offered the Temple Mount at Camp David. Fortunately, Yasser Arafat turned him down. The majority of Israelis have reached the conclusion that there is no Palestinian partner for negotiations, so now there is unilateralism. Borders have never been established on a unilateral basis, and any borders so established will be illusory. Unilateralism did not work with Gaza. It only brought a victory for Hamas, Gaza as a base of terror, the destruction of agricultural land and synagogues, and rockets on the outskirts of Ashkelon. It has been said that terror cannot be defeated militarily, but Israel’s security services and army have been fairly successful in fighting it. Sometimes it requires that the army be present in Palestinian areas, and that can be done without annexing large Palestinian populations. Not integrating Israeli Arabs into Israeli society is Israel’s greatest mistake of the past 50 years. For Israel to live by the norms of a democratic society, that minority must be integrated and have equal opportunities and equal burdens of citizenship. The great divide is understandable, as a product of the War of Independence, but nothing has been done to resolve it. It is the single most important problem facing Israel.

Hon. Shlomo Hillel, former Speaker of the Knesset, government minister, and ambassador, recounted being in Iraq just after World War II, and helping Iraqi Jews to leave for Israel. With a population of about 150,000, Iraqi Jewry represented a significant community and one which had suffered anti-Semitic attacks during the war under the pro-Nazi Iraqi regime. The persecution continued after the war and the community was not allowed to leave for Israel. He also spoke about being the first pilot to bring Iraqi Jews by air to Israel in Operation Ezra and Nechemia. With the declaration of the State of Israel, Iraqi Jews suffered greater persecution and all efforts were made to get them into Iran. He noted that Israel’s great enemy of today was considered a great friend at that time. Only in 1950 were Jews permitted to emigrate, but their possessions were confiscated by the state.

Panelists for sessions held on Shabbat included former minister Hon. Natan Sharansky, Rav Mordechai Elon, Rosh Yeshiva of Yeshivat HaKotel, and Mr. Ari Shavit, a leading journalist with Haaretz, who spoke about confronting the divisions in Israeli society. From the Jewish People Policy Planning Institute, Prof. Yehezkel Dror, Founding President, Mr. Avinoam Bar-Yosef, Director General, and Dr. Shalom Wald, Senior Fellow, led a discussion on options for the Jewish future and what the Jewish world might look like in 2025.

For more discussions with Hon. Zeev Bielski, Chairman of the World Zionist Organization and the Jewish Agency for Israel, Mr. Yossi Vardi, Ms. Karen Tal, principal of the Rogosin-Bialik School, Ms. Zika Avzuk of Cisco Systems, and Maj.-Gen. Elazar Stern of the IDF, please click here. (Photo: Former Defense Minister Moshe Arens (L) with delegation member, Mr. Herbert Seif (R).)

email: info@conferenceofpresidents.org